Steps must be taken to digitize service records of employees: Gauhati High Court to government

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has said that the Assam Government must take steps to digitalize the service records of employees so that the issue of overstay in service can be done away with.

The Gauhati High Court recently directed the Assam Government not to make any recovery from a retired teacher on account of overstay in service on the ground that the official concerned who had signed the service book of the petitioner neither inserted the date of birth nor insisted to have it included in the Service Book.

The petitioner was initially appointed as Stipendiary Teacher on 17.11.1999 on a fixed pay of Rs.900. The petitioner underwent Basic Training Course and got the regular scale of pay w.e.f. 17.01.2006. Thereupon, the petitioner retired on 10.08.2021 as per the retirement notice issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer Paschim Nalbari of Nalbari district. After his retirement, his pension papers were duly sent to the Director of Pension. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari issued a communication dated 13.09.2021 to the petitioner whereby it was mentioned that there was excess drawal of monthly salary for the period from 01.02.2018 to 30.06.2021 i.e. an amount of Rs.17,07,100/- and the petitioner was asked to pay the said amount through treasury challan and submit the challan copy within a short period for preparation of the pension. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 13.09.2021, the petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court challenging the communication and with a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the pension of the petitioner without recovery and/or repayment in accordance with law.

The writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.4936/2021 was filed on 20.09.2021 and the court vide an order dated 28.09.2021 directed the respondent authorities not to recover the alleged excess payment of the salary until further orders. Later, the petittioner filed another writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.1873/2022 seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the retirement benefits like gratuity, leave salary, provident fund etc. to the petitioner with arrear provisional pension from 01.02.2018 onwards.

The bench noted that the Service Book produced by the Elementary Education Department reveals that the official who has put the signature is the Block is the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari. “Surprisingly, in column No.7 of the Service Book which is a column pertaining to “Date of birth of Christian era as nearly can be ascertained”, the same has been kept blank and there is a signature of the Block Elementary Education Officer with the date being inserted as 30.03.2007. This is almost 11 years prior to the petitioner’s actual date of retirement. It further transpires that there are further attestations being made in the Service Book by the Block Elementary Education Officer on 30.03.2007 and 30.12.2011. Subsequent thereto, although there have been various attestations being made by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Paschim Nalbari, there is no date put against such attestations.”

The Court relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein it was held that recovery from retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, would be impermissible in law. Thus, the court set aside and squashed the communication dated 13.09.2021 issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer with following directions:

1. The respondent authorities are directed not to make any recovery from the petitioner in any mode, including from the retirement dues of the petitioner, the amount of Rs.17,07,100 which was computed to be the excess payment drawn by the petitioner on account of overstay.

2. The respondent authorities are directed to fix the retirement benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of superannuation i.e. on 30.01.2018 which is based upon the date of birth as recorded in the HSLC certificate.

3. The respondent authorities including the Elementary Education Department and the Director of Pension are directed to immediately process the pension of the petitioner so that the petitioner receives his arrear pension as well as all other pensionary benefits at the earliest. The said exercise be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment and order is served upon the Director of Elementary Education as well as to the Director of Pension.

The court observed that it has become a recurrent phenomenon that litigations are filed challenging recovery or proposed recovery on account of overstay in service. “In fact, the present case is an epitome of the lack of vigilance and diligence on the part of the officer who was required to see that the date of birth of the petitioner ought to have been inserted in the Service Book. This Court further fails to understand that in the present age where so much impetus is given to digitalization, how the issue as regards the date of birth and date of superannuation can still continue to remain an issue on the ground that the Service Book was not available. It is also relevant to observe that what is normally seen is that the concerned Department when it realizes that there is overstay by an employee, steps are taken to recover from the employee who has retired but no action is taken on the erring officials for whose lack of diligence for not recording the date of birth or issuing the superannuation notice in time, the steps for recovery or notice of recovery is/are issued.”

The court stated that if the State Government is serious to root out the problem of overstay, the government should take appropriate steps by not only holding the retiring employee accountable (if there is a case of fraud or misrepresentation) but also steps are required to be taken against such erring officials for whose lack of diligence and vigilance it had led to overstay. This court said that steps are required to be taken to digitalize the service records of the employees so that not only the official who is required to issue the superannuation notice can do so without any hindrance but the senior officials of the Department can also keep a tab as to whether the official required to take steps for issuance of superannuation notice is doing so.

“This Court hopes and expects that the Government of Assam in its own wisdom shall take appropriate steps so that malady of the present kind do not continue,” the order stated.

Also Read: Angkita Dutta Harassment Case: Congress’ Srinivas BV to Appear Before Dispur Police

Also Watch: